Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And I don't really see how the post you replied too, would have encouraged.......

I can see a reason in the first sentence of the post quoted by lucien. It tempted me, too, but I managed to refrain. :angel: A new poster's fresh comments on a subject about which you have strong opinions can be hard to resist.

As for the "intended" business, The Powers That Be were faced with a real difficulty at the time. I have no problem at all with "intended" as legitimate intentions can change depending on circumstances, and I always expected the issue to be revisited in due course. Something had to be said at the time though, because the fact Camilla would become Queen automatically when Charles becomes King would have been, and was, pounced on by Diana fanatics and other people who consider the infidelity/divorce issue to be enough to stop Camilla being Queen. I am sure Charles wants his beloved wife to be his Queen but even he must have known that the reaction to the engagement would be more hostile and damaging if it were stated at the time that Camilla would become Queen. As it is they left their options open, which I think was wise and the most practical course. Camilla has now had a chance to prove herself, and, hopefully, will have many more years to prove herself more. Charles has tested the waters again now, and the result is interesting. I think that in time there will be little real resistance to Camilla becoming Queen.
 
A new poster's fresh comments on a subject about which you have strong opinions can be hard to resist.

But truly, is that what it's become? That every 'fresh' opinion expressed by someone new needs to be counter balanced by what usually becomes a 'mud slide' of negativity? If so, I find that quite juvenile myself.

Those who have posted for some time would have well and truly expressed their opinions, so to reiterate them (especially those laden with negativity) at every opportunity says to me that they have a real hang up over it. It bemuses me, and this comes back to what I mentioned the other day about 'royal watchers' being so incredibly prejudiced. People have this urge, this need, to regurgitate what has already been said just because they can, not because it's adding any real value to the discussion as is the general hope of someone who is posting for the first time.

Please don't get we wrong, I'm not suggesing that if you have said something before, then theres no reason to mention it again. Not at all. But really, the post I questioned brought absolutely nothing to the equation and in my opinion was quite insensitive in that a woman who was known to have suffered from psychological illness (as an eating dissorder and depression well qualifies as being) can quite flippantly be referred to as a 'loose gun' and someone who had no real purpose in life other than to have her photo taken and manipulate her surrounds, is a pitiful contribution to the thread.

And whilst replying to your post, my response isn't directed at you, Ros :)
 
Last edited:
Best post I've read in a while. Its sad that today some people still don't understand the seriousness of mental illness, which is certainly no joking matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't read the original post as joking about, or even mentioning, Diana's psychological problems, just stating the reasons the poster considered she was unsuitable for the role she married into. Is a person who has psychological problems not to be criticised at all merely because they do have such problems?

Tricky subject though and probably best not to say any more. Not the place.
 
There is a big difference between constructively criticising someone and making fun of someone. No one said Diana shouldn't be criticised but is it necessary for one to go out of his or her way to insult her and call her names to make their arguments valid? And that's same for Charles and Camilla. I have read comments before where people will state their dislike for the two and say derogatory things about them. Its not necesarry nor is it productive.
 
Last edited:
A 'loose gun' (often known as a 'loose canon') is clearly in reference to Diana's psychological health and her subsequent tendencies to become irrational and depressed. I'm sure some will suggest it wasn't meant that way, but by definition, that is what being a 'loose gun' means.

Acknowledging that there were underlying reasons which encouraged the behaviour would have been a most suitable explanation as to why that person felt that Diana would have always found it difficult in that position. But to character assassinate the woman the way they chose too is very much lacking in consideration towards something that is a very real issue, and no doubt was a very difficult issue for her.

Calling her a 'loose gun', likening her to the small children she had once looked after, being a whiner, nothing worthwhile...It's a horrible way to speak of someone and wasn't relevant to the discussion. There are other ways of stressing a point than having to speak so poorly of someone.

She was certainly no saint, but she also wasn't a well woman for many years and it would appear some prefer to just categorise her as having been a 'trivial waste of space' which is a horrible way to speak of someone. She was anything but that. Just as Camilla is anything but a waste of space.
 
Last edited:
:ermm:Prior to Princess Diana marrying to Charles she did not have a past, on her wedding day as I had a bracelet which was meant for Camilla was mistakingly placed on the table with Diana's b of flowers. While Diana and charles were on their honeymoon Charles spoke to Camilla at length at a few gatherings where Camilla happened to be present, Charles disappeared and was found with Camilla, during a sking trip in Swizerland one of Charles bodyguards tried to save Charles from an Avelange the man died when Diana heard, on arriving home Diana ran to embrace Charles he pushed her off hatefully. In the course of a jolly conversation between them he told her remember to whom you are speaking "your future king" he himself told the world that he was not in love with her though he lied to the world on their wedding day before God and the world. I am quoting from a book from one of Diana and Charles butler who have since expired and the media. Who are we to judge? but there is something called Retribution which no one can escape wether King or Peasant.

Which one of you being in Diana position or any of your female relative or friend how would you have prevailed? knowing an older woman was a threat to your marriage.

Everyone like to be loved it was built in us by our creator. Diana was looking for love unfortunately in the wrong places her own white Englishman try to disgrace her. after that she tried to seek love in foreign places. Ofcourse she had become a little unbalanced.:previous:

Prince Charles and Camilla are the two most selfish people I have ever read about. Remember the saga includes Camilla's husband and their children as well as Charles and Diana's Children and now there are grandchildren and would be grand children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This does not affect Charles' non-existent grandchildren.


And if they are the most selfish people you've ever read about, you clearly haven't read about much.
 
I think you have it all quite wrong, Hilda.

Perhaps if you allow yourself the possibility of being subjective, then you will come to see that neither Charles or Camilla are the horrible people you seem to think they are.

They both have very great qualities and are well suited to each other and deserve to be happy, just as Diana would have been most deserving of any such happiness had of she still been alive today.
 
:ermm:Prior to Princess Diana marrying to Charles she did not have a past, on her wedding day as I had a bracelet which was meant for Camilla was mistakingly placed on the table with Diana's b of flowers. While Diana and charles were on their honeymoon Charles spoke to Camilla at length at a few gatherings where Camilla happened to be present, Charles disappeared and was found with Camilla, during a sking trip in Swizerland one of Charles bodyguards tried to save Charles from an Avelange the man died when Diana heard, on arriving home Diana ran to embrace Charles he pushed her off hatefully. In the course of a jolly conversation between them he told her remember to whom you are speaking "your future king" he himself told the world that he was not in love with her though he lied to the world on their wedding day before God and the world. I am quoting from a book from one of Diana and Charles butler who have since expired and the media. Who are we to judge? but there is something called Retribution which no one can escape wether King or Peasant.

Okay,
1; She has never been nor ever will be Princess Diana.
2; You have got all this information from a book, hardly the most trust worty source. Have you only ever read this book? If so, you have a very very biased argument.
3; Charles said "Whatever love is", that does not mean he was not in love with her.


Which one of you being in Diana position or any of your female relative or friend how would you have prevailed? knowing an older woman was a threat to your marriage.

If I had been in Diana's position, I probably would have known my place and not tried to change a system that had been in place for hundreds of years.


Prince Charles and Camilla are the two most selfish people I have ever read about. Remember the saga includes Camilla's husband and their children as well as Charles and Diana's Children and now there are grandchildren and would be grand children.

If you think they are selfish, you haven't read a lot about them.
What saga?
Laura, Thomas, William and Harry seem very happy with the marraige.
 
Well, I have read a lot about them and I too would consider Charles and Camilla selfish as well, based upon their actions. You are entitled to your opinion Iluvbertie, just as other are entitled to theirs.
 
Let's not revisit the Camilla/Charles/Diana triangle.

And let's stay away from the Diana psych profile...the subject of the thread is Charles and Camilla...has your opinion changed since the wedding?

Everything else is off topic and will be deleted.
 
Last edited:
Well, I felt a bit hostile towards Camilla (and Charles, too) when Charles and Diana's marriage broke up. And I was curious about how she would fit in when they got married. But Charles appears to be much happier, and they seem like a great couple, and she seems to be doing very well. I'm impressed with how she has taken up royal duties even when suffering from a broken leg. I can't imagine any reason why she shouldn't be Queen when Charles becomes King. I think she will do a very good job. But in any case, it's always been true that the king's wife is the queen.
 
Well, I have read a lot about them and I too would consider Charles and Camilla selfish as well, based upon their actions. You are entitled to your opinion Iluvbertie, just as other are entitled to theirs.


Why have you mentioned my name?

I haven't posted in this thread for over a week and not in the current discussion.
 
:flowers:You are quite right 'Bertie, it was Lumutqueen I was replying directly after. My apologies!:flowers:
 
If someone showed me a picture of a princess curtsying to another princess, I might buy the story. ;) :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone showed me a picture of a princess curtsying to another princess, I might buy the story. ;) :)

There is certainly the youtube video of Princess Anne curtseying to Princess Camilla at Ascot a few years ago.
 
She isn't a Princess. ;)

I have never seen a princess curtsey to another one, only Princesses curtseying to Queens/Kings.
 
She isn't a Princess. ;)

Camilla doesn't have to be a princess for others to have to curtsey to her. If Charles is present, just about everyone has to curtsey to his wife, who shares his status on the occasion, and his status is second only to the Monarch.

I have never seen a princess curtsey to another one, only Princesses curtseying to Queens/Kings.

If Anne did indeed curtsey to Camilla, Charles would have been lurking VERY close by, and I am sure it would have occurred immediately after a very heated discussion on the subject. :lol:

I hunted around on youtube for a pic of any HRH curtseying to any other HRH, and couldn't find one. I would be delighted to see evidence of it happening.
 
Last edited:
There was some debate and conversation about it in the Royal Ascot threads on TRF, you may want to trawl back and find them. I have no idea whether Charles was close by or not, but I think this caricature of Anne refusing of recognise the position of Camilla has probably gone further than it should have. Lets not forget that most senior members of the BRF are firm followers of the protocal that surrounds them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Camilla, you said Princess Anne curtseyed to Princess Camilla.

Rosyln, I assume this

Camilla doesn't have to be a princess for others to have to curtsey to her. If Charles is present, just about everyone has to curtsey to his wife, who shares his status on the occasion, and his status is second only to the Monarch.

was in response to my Princess comment?

I didn't mean that no one could curtsey to her because she isn't a Princess in her own right. I was commenting on the fact that it is incorrect to call her a Princess, when she isn't.
 
Last edited:
Is Camilla not the Princess of Wales? Just because she does not use it as her primary title does not stop her from being the Princess of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is Camilla not the Princess of Wales? Just because she does not use it as her primary title does not stop her from being the Princess of Wales.

If wish to refer to her as Princess of Wales. Then it should be Camilla, The Princess of Wales.
She isn't a Princess in her own right, so she cannot be called Princess Camilla.
 
I think Camilla Parker-Bowles is an uncommon commoner.She is the great great granddaughter of Mrs Kepple,long time misterss of Edward VII ,she is descended directly from Charles II(illegitimate line).
She is as well Princess of Wales(even thoug she chose not to use this title).
 
If wish to refer to her as Princess of Wales. Then it should be Camilla, The Princess of Wales.
She isn't a Princess in her own right, so she cannot be called Princess Camilla.

No, she is not Camilla, The Princess of Wales nor is she Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. She is The Princess of Wales,(and THE Duchess of Cornwall) there are no other princesses of Wales currently alive, there is no need to qualify which princess of Wales she is by including her first name.

The style Diana, Princess of Wales is for a divorced or widowed wife of the Prince of Wales. Since Camilla is the current Princess of Wales, her name is not used at all!
 
Well if we say Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Camilla, The Princess of Wales seems to apply as well.

If you really want her name it's Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland.

She still isn't Princess Camilla.

But enough about names.
 
I agree with you that there's a lot of different circumstances as to why things did go as they did. What I saw too was something different perhaps than a grand love affair at the get go that never had a chance. When Charles and Camilla first met, they did connect right away but at that time they both were thinking quite differently than a forever kind of love. Camilla wanted Andrew. Charles fell for Camilla but knew at that time that it was mostly a no go and he had duties to fulfill. What truly made theirs a love story is that even with her being married to Andrew (I've heard it stated several places that it was an open marriage) and raising a family, Camilla and Charles remained as the best of friends to the point that he was godfather to their first born son. I think Diana if she'd given herself the chance to become friends with Camilla, things might have gone differently. I think Diana was more intimidated by the intimacy of friendship that Charles shared with the Parker-Bowles and with Camilla mostly. For a 19-20 year old, the idea that a platonic relationship could exist between a man and a woman is like believing the earth is flat. We have yet to hear of any "fooling around" done in Camilla's marriage to Andrew before Charles married Diana. I do believe that Charles did stick to his wedding vows and marriage until as was stated "the marriage irretrievably fell apart". Diana was jealous of the intimacy of friendship mostly

I agree it was a comedy of errors and grossly overplayed as a bad paperback novel. In the long run, over a span of 40 more or less years, whether dating, married to others and close friends, then paramours and then husband and wife, they have a long standing relationship that has withstood the test of time and trials.

Osipi, you have said it perfectly. I see exactly the same thing. Beautifully summarized.

Diana was jealous of a seasoned friendship. She was too young and inexperienced to comprehend it. What is surprising is that she should have not understood the nature of Charles' life prior to her arrival on the scene - but I am of the opinion she did and then very wrongly assumed that her presence meant that she 'owned' Charles and could dictate to him. A mistake for anyone to make regarding a spouse but in particular for her with this particular man. Too many 'notions' in Diana's head, I think, as a too young woman in so many ways. It is a tragedy that she could not have accepted Camilla's friendship - what a different story it all would have been.

i find Camilla's story fascinating. What I wouldn't give to read her memoirs - but it will never be - she is too discreet, and in the end she knows it isn't about her, its about Charles. However, such a memoir would be a gift - and a much needed balance to 'set the record straight' from her end.

I think they make a wonderfully settled and mature older couple - and this marriage has likely meant a far more normal and healthier home-life for Charles and for his sons when his sons visit them on holidays and at family gatherings. I think Camilla deserves to be acknowledged as Queen one day, very much so.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/...icle-1337639-0C5FC993000005DC-220_634x624.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom